Is There a Dominion Mandate? Discussion: In Defense of Human Dominion

Abstract

This paper offers a detailed rebuttal of Darek Isaacs’s criticisms of my recently published paper “Human Dominion and Reproduction” (Kulikovsky 2012). The paper demonstrates that Isaacs has confused concepts and mischaracterized my position to the point that his critique amounts to a straw man argument.

Is There a Dominion Mandate? Response

Darek Isaacs’s recent paper “Is There a Dominion
Mandate” (Isaacs 2013) offers a critique of my view
of human dominion as published in the Journal of
Creation (Kulikovsky 2012). Isaacs rejects my view
as unbiblical, however, as this response will show, his
patronizing critique contains a number of erroneous
understandings and reveals a fundamental confusion
of concepts. His arguments are deeply flawed and, in
some cases, just plain silly. His misrepresentation and
mischaracterization of some of my core points means
that his critique is a straw man.1

The following sections offer detailed rebuttals to
Isaacs’s main points and objections.

Did God Command Adam and Eve to Have Dominion Over Creation?

Isaacs claims that

a commanding position was being given to man, which
is different from “commanding man to command,”
which is how those championing a dominion mandate
have rendered it in concept. (Isaacs 2013, pp. 2–3)

Moreover, he asserts that the burden of proof lies with
those who claim that having dominion relates to a forceful
demand from God to Adam which required obedience.

Isaacs appears to have little idea about how
commands are expressed in the Hebrew language.
According to him, the text must explicitly state that
a command is being issued and there must be a
consequence specified if the command is not obeyed.
Isaacs cites Genesis 2:16–17 as an example. Thus, by
Isaacs’s reasoning, God did not really command the
Israelites to have no other gods (Exodus 20:3) nor did
he command Abram to leave his country (Genesis 12:1)
since neither of these texts (along with countless other
clear commands) explicitly state that a command is
being issued, nor do they specify a direct consequence
if the command is disobeyed.

In Hebrew, commands are expressed in a number
of ways, the most common of which are:

In Genesis 1:26, the imperfect of instruction is
employed: “let them rule/have dominion over the
fish of the sea …” This is confirmed by the use of the
imperative mood for the corresponding verb αῤ χέτωσαν
in the Septuagint. In Genesis 1:28, the imperative
is explicitly used for פְּרוּ (perû, “be fruitful”), רְבוּ
(rebû̲, “increase in number”), מִלְאוּּ (milʾû, “fill”), כִבְשֻהָ
(kibšuhā, “subdue”) and רְדוּ (redû, “rule”). Therefore,
for Isaacs to claim that Genesis 1:26, 28 was not a
command is patently absurd and goes against what
the Hebrew text and the Septuagint clearly indicate.

In addition, Isaacs argues that there could
not have been any command to have dominion
because prior to Genesis 3:6, Adam and Eve had no
knowledge of sin since they had not yet eaten of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, Isaacs
(2013, p. 2) concludes that in the pre-Fall world
there was only one law, and therefore one command,
which was the prohibition against eating the fruit
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But
Isaacs’s contention that knowledge of good and evil
or knowledge of sin is a prerequisite for law does
not follow. Their ignorance of good and evil and
of sin did not prevent God commanding them not
to eat from the forbidden tree. Moreover, Isaacs’s
claim that there was only one law prior to the Fall
is surely begging the question. If God commanded
the human race to procreate and have dominion
in Genesis 1:28, then does that not, by definition,
make it law?

What Does it Mean to Have Dominion over Creation?

Isaacs (2013, p. 3) points out that in the present
natural environment, “conditions are adverse” for
human beings and they are “killed by acts of nature
every year.” He argues that natural disasters and
animals killing and maiming humans demonstrate
that humans do not have dominion, and then cites
many examples to “prove” his point. Furthermore, he
adds that because thorns, thistles, and weeds choke
farming crops, they “do not demonstrate an obedience
to the will of the farmer, nor do all the insects which
feed on the roots of the crops” (Isaacs 2013, p. 3). This
situation stands in stark contrast to Jesus who had
total control over nature (for example Luke 8:24–25).
But this whole line of reasoning is a straw man. Isaacs
appears to think having dominion equates to total
control or absolute sovereignty, but this contention
is false. According to the Concise Oxford English
Dictionary (Soanes and Stevenson 2004), the word
“dominion” refers to (1) sovereignty or control, and (2)
the territory of a sovereign or government. There is
no indication that total control or absolute sovereignty
is implied. In fact, the second meaning indicates
otherwise. A monarch or executive government may
control and have sovereignty over a territory and its
inhabitants, but that does not mean or imply that
they control everything that occurs there; that there
is no crime and the territory is immune from natural
disasters. This misunderstanding of the meaning of
dominion is a fatal flaw in Isaacs’s position.

Isaacs goes on to argue that dominion

is not the attempt or work to try to subdue. Nowhere is
the struggle to overcome actually labeled the victory.
Likewise, nor should the struggle against nature be
labeled as the dominion. (Isaacs 2013, p. 3)

But again, his argument is based on a faulty
understanding of what it means to have dominion. If
we create vaccines that effectively eradicate certain
diseases (for example, polio and smallpox) then we
have not merely attempted or tried to subdue those
diseases—we have succeeded.

According to Isaacs, the absence of total control and
absolute sovereignty does not square with Adam being
given dominion over nature in Genesis 1. Because the
harmony that existed between man and beast in the
beginning has been lost as a result of the Fall, Isaacs
concludes that this implies a loss of dominion, and
adds the haughty claim that to deny his argument “is
to deny Scripture” (Isaacs 2013, p. 7). But, once again,
Isaacs is guilty of a confusion of concepts. Dominion
does not necessarily imply harmony. A tyrannical
ruler has dominion over his subjects but there is no
harmony in that kingdom! The Fall simply made
dominion more difficult: multiplying and filling the
earth now involved great pain; instead of eating from
the trees in the garden, mankind now had to work
the ground for his food and his labor would often only
produce thorns and thistles.

The depictions of the behemoth and the leviathan
in Job 40–41 are cited by Isaacs to demonstrate that
mankind had no rule over these creatures, which,
according to him, is what dominion would imply.
However, he does not seem to understand that God’s
interrogation of Job is directed at Job, not the entire
human race. Job (or any other particular individual)
may not personally be capable of capturing and
taming these creatures but that does not mean
mankind collectively could not capture and/or kill
them. Indeed, when God blessed Noah and his sons,
He stated the following:

Then God blessed Noah and his sons and said to
them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
Every living creature of the earth and every bird
of the sky will be terrified of you. Everything that
creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are
under your authority. You may eat any moving thing
that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now
give you everything. (Genesis 9:1–3, New English Translation)

I am sure that Isaacs would agree that this would
include both the behemoth and the leviathan.

Resisting the Fall

Isaacs also questions the notion that our
stewardship role implies that we resist the Fall and
reverse its effects. Although he acknowledges that
כָּבַשׁ (kaḇaš, “subdue”) and רָדָה (rādâ, “rule”) “contain
coercive, forceful elements” (Isaacs 2013, p. 11) he
refuses to accept that this implies that Αdam was
to tend the garden and work the ground. To Isaacs,
this would mean the creation was initially hostile and
that the original very good creation was actually in
need of improvement:

Such a low view of God’s creation, and its ability to
not completely provide for Adam’s needs is alarming.
For it lessens the sin of eating from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, because Adam may have
argued he ate out of need, and not out of selfishness.
This could place the fault at God’s hands for not
providing a suitable environment for Adam that
allowed for perfect obedience. (Isaacs 2013, p. 11)

He adds:

Kulikovsky’s conclusions … land him in a thorny
theological place. For Kulikovsky’s outcomes are
disastrous for the biblical model of a very good God,
and very good creation. (Isaacs 2013, p. 11)

However, Isaacs mischaracterizes my point and thus
his conclusions do not follow. The garden and the land
outside the garden were perfectly capable of providing
all mankind’s needs, but that does not mean that no
work was required. Isaacs appears to think that the
need to work is purely a result of the Fall through
the sin of Adam and Eve, yet Genesis 2:15 makes it
clear that God instructed Adam to work and tend the
garden before the Fall: “The Lord God took the man
and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it
and to maintain it” (New English Translation).

A distinction should also be made between the nature
and amount of work that needed to be done after the Fall
as compared to what needed to be done before the Fall.
As I have stated, human dominion implies we actively
resist the effects of the Fall, but there were obviously no
effects to resist when the Fall had not yet occurred. Before
the Fall, having dominion implied working the ground
(Genesis 2:5), and working and tending the garden
(Genesis 2:15). But after the Fall, the Curse meant that
the amount of work increased and mankind needed to
be more active: instead of just tilling and watering the
ground, he now had to weed and fertilize it.2 Instead of
being a fruitful and pleasurable experience, his work
became difficult, painful, exhausting, and frustrating
(Genesis 3:17–19).

Isaacs also criticizes the linguistic analysis of the
Hebrew words kaḇaš and rādâ that I presented in my
paper, and accuses me of proof-texting and selectively
citing authorities. But Isaacs’s cavalier dismissal of the
linguistic authorities is simply hubris. These linguistic
resources were prepared by leading scholars3 based on
extensive philological and etymological study of the
extant texts and inscriptions. These scholars could be
wrong, but the burden lies with Isaacs to demonstrate
this rather than simply dismissing their work.

In addition, Isaacs suggests that I believe “the
Creation was hardwired, from the beginning, to
resist the dominion of Adam” and falsely states that
I concluded that “the ‘very good’ creation must have
been obstinate and uncooperative from the beginning”
(Isaacs 2013, p. 11). This is not only false, it is another
gross mischaracterization of my argument. Isaacs
appears to be operating on the erroneous assumption
that one can rightly impute personal and volitional
characteristics to the impersonal creation. When
discussing my viewpoint he speaks of creation
being “hostile,” “obstinate and uncooperative,” “less
than willing,” and having “a predisposition to be
uncontrollable.” Neither I nor the linguistic authorities
I cited described the creation in this way. The original
“very good” creation operated according to the laws of
nature that God had put in place at the beginning.
The second law of thermodynamics meant that plants
would die if they were not watered. Gravity meant
that water flowed straight downhill, so it needed
to be channeled or carried in vessels in order for it
to be used for drinking. Again, these things would
happen not because the creation was spoiled, evil,
and willingly hostile and uncooperative, but because
it operated in accordance with God’s laws.

Isaacs further asserts that the notion of man ruling
over the creation “does not line up with the Bible” and
claims I wrongly referred (as a “proof text”) to Psalm 8,
because I misunderstood it. According to Isaacs,
this Psalm “is not about mankind; it is referring to
the coming Jewish Messiah” because Paul cited
Psalm 8:6 in 1 Corinthians 15:27 (Isaacs 2013, p. 10).

With all due respect to Isaacs, it is he who has
misunderstood the text and used a proof text (that is,
Psalm 8:6). Psalm 8 is a hymn by David. In its original
historical and literary context, it served as a song of
praise to our Creator God. Anyone who reflects upon
creation and comprehends the vastness of the universe
and how small and insignificant human beings are
in comparison, cannot help but acknowledge God’s
majesty. Yet, despite our apparent insignificance, God
cares for us and placed us in a position of glory and
honor above the rest of His creation.

It should also be noted that the term “son of man”
in Psalm 8:4 is not an allusion to the term “Son of
Man” which Jesus used to describe Himself in the
gospels. The term “son of man” is used extensively
in Ezekiel and refers to the prophet himself (for
example, Ezekiel 2:1). In Psalm 8, the term stands
in a synonymous parallelism with “man” indicating
that it is an alternative way of referring to a normal
human being. Indeed, the exact same synonymous
parallelism can be found in Psalm 144:3 which clearly
refers to a normal human person.

What, then, do we make of the New Testament
quotations of Psalm 8:6? This verse is cited three
times in the New Testament and each instance applies
it in a different way, although all have Christological
significance. As Peter C. Craigie explains:

In the early church, the words of the psalm describing
mankind’s role of dominion in the world (8:6–7) are
given christological significance with respect to the
dominion of Jesus Christ in his resurrection and
exaltation. In one sense, this is quite a new meaning,
not evidently implicit in the psalm in its original
meaning and context. (Craigie 1983, p. 108)

In other words, the Apostle Paul has used a single
verse from one of David’s songs of praise to illustrate
Christ’s authority, power, and exalted position in
God’s kingdom.

In 1 Corinthians 15:27, Paul uses Psalm 8:6 to
illustrate that in the same way that God placed
everything under the first Adam (Genesis 1:28;
Psalm 8:6), He has now placed everything under the second
Adam, Christ. The difference is that whereas Adam
and his descendants are subject to death, Christ has
now conquered it (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24–26). This
is an example of a Hebrew exegetical principle known
as gezerah shavah (comparing similar expressions).
“Paul interprets this Psalm as applying to the Messiah
as the one who brings to fulfillment God’s intentions
for humanity” (Beale and Carson 2007, p. 745).

The same quotation is used again in Ephesians 1:22
but for a very different purpose. Here the quotation
refers to Christ’s position as head of the church. A
different use again may be found in Hebrews 2:6–8.
The writer notes that although the present reality may
not indicate victory in salvation, their salvation would
be made perfect through Christ’s humiliation, suffering,
death, and ultimate resurrection and exaltation.
Again, these quotations of Psalm 8:6 have been given
new meaning and application in the light of the new
covenant—a meaning and application quite different
from its original. Note that only the New Testament
quotations of Psalm 8:6 have been given a new meaning
and application. These quotations do not change the
meaning of Psalm 8:6 in its original historical and
literary context as Isaacs seems to imply.4

In any case, it appears Isaacs has misunderstood
what I mean by reversing the effects of the Fall. I have
merely suggested that we have a responsibility and
a mandate to resist evil and all its effects, including
the physical effects in creation. Yes, human beings
are fallen, but we are still image bearers of God, and
there are also many instances where human ingenuity
has led to great advances in agricultural production
and marked improvements to human health and
well-being. Furthermore, moral corruption has not
completely impeded human innovation and ingenuity.5
It is surprising that Isaacs views the proposition of
reversing the effects of the Fall as unbiblical when it
is clearly implied right at the beginning just after the
Fall occurred. God said to Adam:

[C]ursed is the ground thanks to you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.Genesis 3:17b–19 (New English Translation)

The cursed ground naturally produces thorns
and thistles, yet Adam is to work the soil in order to
produce the “plants of the field” that will be his food.

Finally, Isaacs also mischaracterizes my argument
regarding mankind having control over the creation.
He claims that I argue that “ownership over something
must mean control over something” (Isaacs 2013, p. 12)
even though I explicitly stated that possession, rather
than ownership, implies control. Psalm 115:16 states
that the earth has been given to mankind and therefore
mankind has ultimate control (though not absolute
control). Isaacs asserts that mankind’s possession of the
earth was negated by the Fall, but he offers no biblical
evidence to support his assertion. Instead, he resorts to
citing scenarios that are not at all analogous:

If a donkey is given to a man it does not mean the
donkey is going to walk whenever the man tugs the
bridle … Just because this creation is the mortal home
of man it does not mean that the home obeys man
or that we can subdue it into not having tornadoes,
hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, lightning strikes,
and the like. It is obvious that the original sin of Adam
changed man’s control and dominion was forfeited.
(Isaacs 2013, p. 12)

But that is not what having dominion and control
means or implies. A man may not be able to make
the donkey walk, but he can train it to do so, and
if it will not be trained he can destroy it and find a
donkey that can be trained. Mankind cannot prevent
tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and
lightning strikes, but we can build stronger buildings
to withstand strong winds and earth movements.
We can build dams, dikes, levies, and spillways to
prevent or minimize flooding, and erect lightning
rods to neutralize lightning strikes.

Conclusion

It should be clear from the above that Isaacs’s
criticisms of my view of human dominion are
unwarranted and do not stand up to logical or
exegetical scrutiny. He has made a number of
fundamental exegetical and conceptual errors, and
grossly misrepresented and/or mischaracterized my
views and arguments. Therefore, I continue to stand
by all the propositions and arguments I have put
forward in my original paper.

I will conclude my response by quoting Isaacs
himself and suggest that he take his own good
advice:

Making things up is never the answer to solving
biblical questions. Sticking to the simple language in
the divinely inspired text is where the answers reside.
(Isaacs 2013, p. 8)

References

Beale, G. K. and D. A. Carson. eds. 2007. Commentary on the
New Testament use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker.

Answers Research Journal

2013 Volume 6

Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Footnotes

Isaacs actually submitted a similar critique to Journal of Creation and I prepared a response for publication. However, he elected to withdraw his paper before it was published and thus my response was also not published.

Αt this point in history, only natural fertilizers were available.

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (2000), James Swanson (1997), John Oswalt and William White (1980).

This is not unlike the situation where a modern writer cites or quotes a famous writer from the past but gives their words a new meaning or application. For example, an article by Sigrid Winkler (2012) is entitled “Taiwan’s UN Dilemma: To Be or Not To Be” which uses William Shakespeare’s famous words from Hamlet (“To be or not to be”) to describe Taiwan’s ongoing quest to become a recognized member of the United Nations. But Shakespeare’s words have nothing to do with recognizing a state’s legitimacy. These words were uttered by Hamlet while contemplating whether it is better to suffer the pain and stress of life, or to end it all by killing yourself. Yet Winkler’s reference to Shakespeare’s famous words do not change the meaning that Shakespeare intended when he wrote them.

In World War II, the Third Reich produced the best tanks, the best submarines, and some of the best battleships and cruisers, not to mention the Messerschmitt Me 262, the first combat jet aircraft, and the V-1 and V-2 rockets.

Submit a Paper

Email papers, diagrams, tables, etc. to the email address listed in the Manual.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.